ON THE SACRIFICES OF THE NATURAL ORDER
FOR
HUMAN LIFE

The logic of death-for-life runs deep throughout all cultural systems.
Whatever the level of scientific sophistication, it is the central lesson
taken from the natural order, whether in the easily observed relationships
between predator and prey (where death comes to the weak and defenseless
and where each feeding subsists on lower levels and is prey of higher ones,
making each death a contribution to the whole) or within such abstract
notions as biosystems or industrial systems' dependencies on fossil fuels.

When ritualized, this logic becomes the methodology of sacrificial
rituals. Here sacrificial victims become valued ritual objects as their
demise means life for the human group. The precise nature of the life-enhancing
force yielded by the sacrifice often go far beyond the satisfaction of
nutritional needs and involve appealing to unseen deities who wield ultimate
life and death power. As Peggy Sanday observed in Divine Hunger: Cannibalism as a
Cultural System (Cambridge, 1986), "Cannibalism is never just about eating
but is primarily a medium for nongustatory messages--messages having to do with the
maintenance, generation, and in some cases, the foundation of the cultural order"
(p.3). Such appeals can entail:

appeasing said deities by satisfying their needs (such as their
periodic "deaths" and rebirths), and thereby obtaining either
their support (such as guaranteeing fertility) or at least their non-interference
in human affairs;

absorbing their mana or power, as by consuming the flesh or
blood of the sacrificed;

or, as in the case of kosher slaughter rituals, being protected
by them against the revengeful spirits of the sacrificed. Aztec culture
was, for example, fueled by the blood of human sacrifices to the sun god.
But even its warriors were to be shocked by the lethal brutalities of the
Spaniards on the battlefield. For them even the bodies of enemies were
sacred, deserving of ritually pure and meaningful deaths, and thus were
wasted when so defiled by the Conquistadors.

I share these thoughts to frame an analysis of a contemporary controversy
involving the death of nature in exchange for human life: the sacrifice
of animals in the name of human longevity. Over the past century, such
sacrifices have been conducted in the name of science. Around the time
of the first world war, for instance, Serge Voronoff, a Russian emigrant
to France, found that eunuchs aged faster than normal and concluded that
the absence of a testicular hormone was responsible. The African domains
of France, Britain, and Belgium were to be largely depleted of anthropoids
to perform gland transplantation operations on his wealthy clientele. Cells
from the flesh of unborn lambs were injected into the veins of such long-lived
individuals as Pope Pius XII, Bernard Baruch, and Somerset Maugham. More
recently, during the 1980s, General Motors killed roughly 20,000 dogs,
rabbits, pigs, ferrets, rats and mice in safety tests (The Detroit News/AP,
Sept. 28, 1991).

And then, of course, there are the animal sacrifices in medical
laboratories. Monkeys, for example, are infected with AIDS-like viruses
to test the effectiveness of various vaccines. To determine the potency
of poisons, rats are given increasing doses of toxins until one-half die
(see David L. W. Miller's
"The LD-50 Test"). According to a 1994 study of the
Tufts University Center for Animals and Public
Policy, as many as 50 million
or more animals were used each year in American medical research before
1970. Because of the growing influence of animal protection groups, this
number had declined to an estimated 20 million animals in 1992. The Department
of Agriculture now requires laboratories to categorize their animal use
in three groups: research causing no pain, research causing pain and distress
but is relieved by drugs, and research that causes pain and distress not
relievable by drugs. To see the perspective of animal research proponents,
take a look at "Animal
Research Facts" from the Foundation for Biomedical Research.

As mentioned, sacrificial victims have historically obtained enhanced
symbolic significance and value. Such has become the case of animals in
the contemporary death- for-life rituals of modern scientific research,
as evidenced by the rise of the animal rights movements. In part, these
movements have emerged with a growing awareness of the interdependencies
and fragilities of ecosystems. The explosion of human numbers over the
past century, coupled with industrialization and capitalism, has led to
a rapid destruction of the natural order through deforestation, urbanization,
cash crops, strip mining, and harvestings of the seas. Among the clearest
examples are the expanding deserts of the Third World which correspond
with the a growing consumption of firewood. For more than a third of the
world's population, the real energy crisis is a daily scramble to find
the wood they need to cook their meals. At least half of all the timber
cut in the world is used not for construction or paper but rather for cooking
fuel and, in colder regions, for warmth. In most poor countries today,
a vast majority of people depend on firewood as their chief source of fuel,
with the average user annually burning a ton or more of firewood. Such
trends cannot last. Archeologist Richard D. Hansen argues, for instance,
that a similar deforestation produced an ecological disaster that precipitated
the collapse of the Maya civilization in approximately 800 A.D. To produce
the stucco for their huge limestone pyramids, the Mayans leveled forests
to fuel the hot fires required for transforming limestone into lime.

A second factor underlying the rise of the animal rights/anti-vivisectionist
movements involves a new sense of connectedness between humans and
the animal kingdom, entitling animals to share many of the moral rights
enjoyed by the human primate. Ethical systems have historically expanded
from the family to the clan, the tribe, the nation, the peoples of the
planet, and increasingly to all life forms. Also contributing to this new
awareness is Eastern thought that, in contrast to Judeo-Christianity's
general moral indifference to the killing of animals, views all life as
a single unity.

As can be seen, the influences of education and religion are additive
in shaping Americans' toward the moral rights of animals and the morality
of animal testing: belief that animals should be entitled to the same moral
rights as humans decreases with increasing education and religiosity; belief
that it is alright to use animals in research consistently increases with
education and religiosity. In addition, it was found that:

Females are forty percent more likely than males to strongly agree
or agree that animals should have the same moral rights as humans (34%
vs. 24%). Among categories of education, this sex difference is greatest
among those with four or more years of college (26% vs. 14%). This sex
difference exists across all age groups and is greatest among those 80
and older (40% vs. 21%) and those 18-29 (43% vs. 30%). Controlling for age, education
and religiosity has little if any impact on this sex difference.

Belief in the moral rights of animals generally decreases with age,
with the highest support among those 18 to 29 years of age. This relationship between age
and support for animals' moral rights is greatest among those with at least some post-
secondary education. When sex, education and religiosity are controlled for, this
percentage difference in support between the old and the young increases by over one-
quarter. Could this be reflecting the older age groups' more rural roots, where individuals
slaughtered their animals food rather than the younger, more urban age groups who
purchase from grocery stores identically-packaged processed meats sans all evidence of
hide, hoof, and feather?

Those thinking it is definitely or probably true that "human
beings developed from earlier species of animals" (which comprises
48% of the American adult public) are significantly more likely to endorse
the moral rights of animals. This subscription to the theory of evolution
increases with education and decreases with religiosity and age. When controlling for age,
education and religiosity, the difference in the percent of Americans supporting animal
moral rites among those who believe in the theory of evolution (36% endorsing) and those
who think it's false (28.5% endorsing) increases slightly.

Support for the use of animals in research generally increases with
age, from 55 percent of those 18 to 29 years of age to 72 percent of those 70 and older.
When sex, age, and religiosity are controlled for this age difference increases by one-third.

Males are 13 percentage points more likely than females (73% vs.
60%) to strongly agree or agree that it is right to use animals for medical
testing. This sex difference is greatest among those having gone no further
than high school (74% vs. 56%) and among those in their thirties (72% vs.
55%). Differences in education, religiosity and age do nothing to account for this sex
difference.

Those endorsing the moral rights of animals are significantly less
likely to approve of the use of animal testings (43%) than those who don't
(75%). This percentage difference of 32% is unaffected when we control for sex, age,
education, and religiosity.

Did you catch some of the intriguing interactions going on? With
increasing education, individuals are less likely to endorse the moral
rights of animals and yet are more likely to believe in the theory of evolution
which, in turn, increases the likelihood of endorsing the animals' moral
rights. Though increasing religiosity diminishes the likelihood of endorsing
the moral rights of animals and though women are more likely to be strongly
religious than men, women are more likely to believe that animals should
have the same moral rights of people.

The question might occur to you whether there is any relationship between
Americans' attitudes toward animal testing with attitudes toward the other death-related
moral controversies of our times: attitudes toward abortion, euthanasia, and capital
punishment.

There is a weak albeit statistically significant relationship between animal testing
and the right of a woman to have an abortion "for whatever reason." Those agreeing with
the medical use of animals are slightly more likely to agree with abortion (48%) than than
those opposing their use (43%). This percentage difference (48-43=5% in total) is
greatest among those who are somewhat (49-29=20%) and not very (60-49=11%)
religious, among liberal Protestants (58-47=11%), political moderates (50-40=10%).
among those 18 to 29 (54-42=12%), and slightly more for women than men.

There is no connection between attitudes toward animal testing and euthanasia in
the minds of Americans.

There is a very slight significant relationship between Americans attitudes toward
animal testing and capital punishment, with those approving of animal testing being 4
percentage points more likely to support capital punishment than those disapproving. This
percentage difference (or connections made between the issues) is greatest in the minds of
high school and college graduates (9% difference), those 18-29 (11%), liberal Protestants
(12%) and Jews (-17%, with those not approving of animal testing being more likely to
support capital punishment).

In sum, like Americans' attitudes toward capital punishment, attitudes toward
animal testing is a separate dimension of their death ideology, largely unrelated to the
powerful connections made between the moral matters of abortion and euthanasia.
Supporters of animal testing are significantly more likely than nonsupporters to agree
"nature is really a fierce struggle for survival of the fittest" (69% vs. 54%)--a relationship
that increases the more fundamentalist one's faith. They are significantly more likely to
disagree with the statements "Overall, modern science does more harm than good" and
"Any change humans cause in nature--no matter how scientific--is likely to make things
worse."

One final thought. A 1997 New York Times article (Sheryl Gay
Stolberg, "Unchecked Experiments on People Raise Concern," May 14), quoted R. Alto
Charo, a member of President Clinton's National Bioethics Advisory
Commission,
observing that "We have better information about animal experiments than we do about
human experiments." Indeed, in the government's Division of Animal Care, one can
find the exact numbers of guinea pigs subjected to biomedical research in 1995 (333,379)
and of chimpanzees feeling pain during research but comforted with medication (19,712).
In its computer data base, there are 31 years of state-by-state accountings of the
experiences of every cat, dog, hamster, guinea pig, chimpanzee, rabbit or farm animal ever
used in laboratory experiments.